Posted on 04/16/2003 5:44:44 AM PDT by Lady Eileen
Washington, DC-area Freepers interested in Lincoln and/or the War Between the States should take note of a seminar held later today on the Fairfax campus of George Mason University:
The conventional wisdom in America is that Abraham Lincoln was a great emancipator who preserved American liberties. In recent years, new research has portrayed a less-flattering Lincoln that often behaved as a self-seeking politician who catered to special interest groups. So which is the real Lincoln?
On Wednesday, April 16, Thomas DiLorenzo, a former George Mason University professor of Economics, will host a seminar on that very topic. It will highlight his controversial but influential new book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. In the Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo exposes the conventional wisdom of Lincoln as based on fallacies and myths propagated by our political leaders and public education system.
The seminar, which will be held in Rooms 3&4 of the GMU Student Union II, will start at 5:00 PM. Copies of the book will be available for sale during a brief autograph session after the seminar.
"Mr. Epperson provided some information concerning the cites used by Davis in his book The Long Surrender. The issue was the quote attributed to CJ Chase to the effect that "secession is not rebellion...."
I looked at the 1900 VBA article and it, so far as I can tell, does not mention that quote. So where it came from remains a mystery.
But, I am not sure I would agree that the sentiment (secession is not rebellion) would not be that of Chase. He, IMO, carefully distinguished betwen secession and "levying war." Secession was not the same thing as levying war. I am not sure when he formulated his view that the acts of secession were null and void (the famous "sentence" of Tx. vs. White), but assuming he had that view when the quote was made (if it was made), the quote is understandable. If secession is Constitutionally impossible, then it would be of no effect and bringing criminal charges based on that alone would be problematic.
My opinion is, I think, aided by Chase's letter to Greeley condemning an editorial which, IIRC, argued that treason had not been committed or that, if committed, it should not be punished. Chase writes to the effect "Where have you been? Can it be denied that Confederates levied war against the US and that they had a duty of allegiance to the US? Of course not! Thus, the Constitutional requirements for treason have been met--not by the attempted secession, but from the war which followed."
IOW, Chase seemed to separate the act of secession from the acts of war which followed. The latter he believed to be clearly treason, the former, he thought to be not quite so clear. I would welcome any comments on my reading of the events and Chase's view of the law. I am not interested in the usual personal attacks from the usual suspect."
Walt
Touchy touchy. Maybe if you didn't misspell your name so often we wouldn't call you 'Wlat.' Also, if you knew how to read English and how to read historical writings without garbling the meaning and ignoring the context, I might have some respect for you.
More:
"Burke Davis would never be my choice for "meticulous scholar of the year," but I would think that he would provide the source for such an important statement. I didn't see it in the Nichols article, Wayne didn't see it in the Blackford VBA article, and I couldn't find it in the SHSP articles. That is the sum total of what Davis cites on the subject.
Does the VBA article point to any other sources that might contain the Chase statement? I'm confidant Chase never said this, but I am curious as to *where* the story started.
Two other comments: Burke Davis attributes one of the SHSP articles to George Boutwell, but in fact it is an unsigned article pulled from the Richmond newspaper, and I have been told that Boutwell is an unlikely person to have authored such an article.
In a previous go-round of this subject, I mentioned, courtesy of the Jeff Davis Papers site, that Chase had somehow communicated his view that the 14th Amendment punished Davis for his acts, therefore a trial would be double jeopardy. Wayne questioned this, and all I could do is say that the Jeff Davis Papers site believed it. The Nichols article explains what happened, saying that Chase told George Shea. I'm not sure if Shea was one of Davis's attorneys or just an associate of theirs. I didn't take notes on Nichols's citation of this, but I am confidant that I read it correctly.
Oh, yes, Burke Davis has the citation information for the Nichols article incorrect. He says it is in Volume 3 of the American Historical Review, and it is in Volume 30-something. I found it using the year, which is listed correctly.
Jim Epperson "
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
You need corroboration.
Walt
So, what you're saying is the Federal government didn't have a case, they would have held a kangaroo court show trial, and that law and the Constitution don't matter. Do you vote for Democrat leftists like Wlat does?
Touchy touchy.
It just seems odd that you would indicate you don't mean offense, and then misspell my name.
Walt
That would be hard, because no one suggested during Washington's life that any state -could- withdraw.
Madison is amply on the record that unilateral state secession could only be done for intolerable abuse, and that unilateral secession is but another word for revolution.
In his letter to Daniel Webster, dated March 13, 1833, James Madison wrote:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the U. S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
The rebels made little distinction in what they were doing -- until it was time to make excuses.
Today the excuses continue.
Walt
I was educated in some of the best suburban school systems in the country (in northern Virginia) and for two years in a Dept. of Defense school overseas. Then I earned a B.A. in History from a university stocked with some of the best minds in the country such as Robert Bork and Walter Williams, as well as numerous Nobel Prize winners. The fact that Walt can't spell his name properly or that the two of you don't care that the tenets of the Constitution were violated is not a reflection on my intelligence or education.
My, aren't we plesant this morning. As for your ridiculous synopsis, the trial would have been fair and the evidence would have been clearly presented. The jury would have been made up of people who were not hard line rebel supporters but who agreed that the southern actions were illegal. If that constitutes a 'kangaroo court' then, of course, you must be right. You are apparently right about everything.
HenryLeeII: General Washington is not speaking out against the concept of secession.
WhiskeyPapa: He did though. [Author of the Real Lincoln…Reply No. 882]
You're getting to be like the Clinton's in the fact that you can't keep your tales straight.
And if you're going to quote Madison about the Constitution, how about something he wrote during the ratification debates which is more relevant than a letter he wrote 40+ years after the fact. The fact that you don't know that Madison's Constitution is based on the concept of dual sovereignty (Federal government has enumerated delegated powers, and the states/people retain all others)is simply mind-boggling.
Don't you mean Wlater Williams?
The fact that Walt can't spell his name properly or that the two of you don't care that the tenets of the Constitution were violated is not a reflection on my intelligence or education.
And, apparently, you can't spell it either. But since I take second place to nobody in my horrible spelling then I'm hardly in a position to criticize. I think it was George Patton who said, "Anyone can spell the same word the same way time and again. It takes a person with imagination and creativity to be able to spell the same word in multiple ways like I can."
As for your second claim, I care deeply when the Constitution is violated. I just don't agree with your interpretation on what constitutes a violation in this case.
But given the fact that Washington said plainly that to be fearful of giving Congress ample authority over the state governments was "the very climax of popular absuridty and madness", and that he urged an "immovable attachment" to the national Union, don't you think it a bit strange that his image appears on the Great Seal of the CSA?
Walt
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans."
When did I say that?
Walt
You are saying quite clearly that the jury would be rigged ("made up of people who were not hard line rebel supporters but who agreed that the southern actions were illegal") but deny it as you are saying it ("the trial would have been fair"). And then you say that "the evidence would have been clearly presented," but you and WhiskeyPapa have never shown any law or Constitutional passage that supports your argument. In fact, WP has admitted that he knows of no explicit prohibition against a state's withdrawal.
Patton was badly dyslexic. That is probably why he was so bad at math. He flunked out of West Point because of math.
I think I have a touch of it too.
Walt
I am glad you finally added the word "explicit".
The laws of the United States clearly preclude unilateral state secession.
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.